Yevamot

that a levirate bond does exist  but the halizah had previously removed that [levirate] bond.  The Rabbis, however, hold that no levirate bond exists.  If, then, he had said to her at first,  'Be thou betrothed unto me by the bond of the levirate' would not his word have been valid?  Consequently it is now also valid. R. Sherabia said: Had a proper halizah been performed all would agree that if he said to her,  'Be thou betrothed unto me by the bond of the levirate', there is no validity in his betrothal. Here, however, the dispute relates to a halizah of an impaired character. One Master  holds that a halizah of an impaired character provides [all the necessary] exemption,  and the Masters hold that a halizah of an impaired character provides no exemption. R. Ashi said: [No;] All agree that a halizah of an impaired character provides no exemption. Here,  however, the dispute centres round the question whether a condition  may affect the validity of halizah.  The Masters hold that a condition  does affect the validity of a halizah  and the Master  holds that no condition may affect the validity of a halizah. Rabina said: [No;] All agree that a condition does affect a halizah. Here,  however, the dispute is dependent on the question of the doubled condition.  The Master  holds that a doubled condition is essential  and the Masters hold the opinion that a doubled condition is unnecessary. IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, OR COHABITED WITH HER etc. It should also have been stated, 'No act is valid after cohabitation'!  — Both Abaye and Raba replied: Read,  'NO ACT IS VALID AFTER cohabitation'. But our Tanna?  — [The statement regarding] the permissibility of the sister-in-law to marry anyone  was preferred by him. THE LAW IS THE SAME WHETHER THERE IS ONE SISTER-IN LAW … OR TWO SISTERS-IN-LAW. Our Mishnah  is not in agreement with the ruling of Ben 'Azzai. For it was taught: Ben 'Azzai stated: A ma'amar is valid after another ma'amar where it concerns two levirs  and one sister-in-law,  but no ma'amar is valid after a ma'amar where it concerns two sisters-in-law and one levir.  HOW? … A MA'AMAR TO THE ONE etc. May it be suggested that this  provides support to a ruling of Samuel, Samuel having stated that if the levir had participated in the halizah with her to whom he addressed a ma'amar, her rival was not thereby exempt; and an objection to the ruling of R. Joseph?  — Does it state: He may participate in the halizah? What it states is 'had participated', implying a fait accompli. A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO THE ONE AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER etc. May it be suggested that this  provides support to Rabbah son of R. Huna. For Rabbah son of R. Huna stated, 'A halizah of an impaired character must go the round of all the brothers'?  — By IT IS NECESSARY FOR BOTH, widows generally  were meant. IF HE GAVE A LETTER OF DIVORCE TO ONE AND SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH FROM THE OTHER. May it be suggested that this  provides support to the ruling of Samuel  and presents an objection against the ruling of R. Joseph?  — Does it state: He may participate in the halizah? What it states is 'had participated', implying a fait accompli. IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH FROM THE ONE AND FROM THE OTHER, OR SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH etc. It should also have been stated, 'No act is valid after cohabitation'!  Both Abaye and Raba replied: Read,  'no act is valid after cohabitation'. But our Tanna?  — [The statement on] the permissibility of the sister-in-law marrying anyone  was preferred by him. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LAW WHETHER THERE WAS ONE LEVIR TO TWO SISTERS-IN-LAW etc. According to R. Johanan who ruled that the whole house  stands under the prohibition of a negative precept,  it is intelligible why it was necessary to inform us  that betrothal with those whose intercourse involves the penalties of a negative precept is invalid;  according to Resh Lakish, however, who ruled that all the house  is subject to the penalty of kareth,  was there any need to inform us that betrothal with those whose intercourse involves kareth is invalid?  — Resh Lakish can answer you: And even according to your conception was it necessary to tell us in the final clause, which speaks of the case where the LEVIR COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, that there was no validity in a betrothal with a married woman?  But the fact is that as he taught concerning the permissibility  of one levir and one sister-in-law,  he also taught concerning two sisters-in-law and one levir. And since he taught concerning two sisters-in-law and one levir, he also taught concerning two levirs and one sister-in-law.